Protestant interpretations...

[teak421]

Swing on over to this blog article which is a transcript of the James White/Patrick Madrid Sola Scriptura debate. (vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html) In James White’s opening statement, he gives a masterful exegesis of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 that completely demonstrates just what you’re looking for. You most likely have some negative preconceptions, so please try to read openly. Look for criticisms and read critically, but don’t brush the argument aside just because it’s from some protestant “anti-Catholic.”

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

A couple of thoughts on the entire passage (not just the two verses you pulled out):

• Remember, Sola Scriptura is ONLY. Where above does it say ONLY.
• If you notice, two verses up (you didn’t quote that) it clearly says learning from those you learned it. This is not Written… Its oral.
• I’m sure you are aware that most of the New Testament was NOT written when Paul wrote that verse. He was referring to the Old Testament.
• If anything, the passage in its entirety says we need BOTH! Not just written. (that’s what I believe!)
• There are also other verses that talk about holding fast to what we’ve taught you.
• The Bible started to written 20 years after our Lord’s Passion. Gospel of John was in the 90’s. What did they do?
• Does the Bible contain a Table of Contents in written form(in the Bible)? Who determined which Scripture’s were “inspired”?
• In fact, the Bible was not officially canonized until the late 4th century.
• We have canons from earlier that included the Shepherd of Hermes (sp?), why wasn’t that included?
• Does the Bible claim to be the SOLE foundation of everything Christian?
• What is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
• When the Holy Spirit reveals ALL Truth, why then do we have people who believe that you must speak in tongues to be saved… others believe in pre-destination… others believe that once you are saved you are always saved… still others believe you can lose your salvation… etc. Scripture says the Holy Spirit will reveal ALL truth. Which one of the above has the Truth? Who decides?

I was a Protestant for 20 years (LOVED it!!!), so I know all of the arguments and that’s the primary reason why I became Catholic. It does not pass the Faith and Reason test.

I would like to hear what you think about Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

PS: Forgive the bad grammar and rambling… These are just random thoughts in my head as to why Sola Scriptura is a really bad doctrine.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

You do know that in Jerome’s tract, The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary he argues quite vigorously that Mary continued to be a virgin. Do you only pull writings that suite your ideology, or do you look at the entire writer to determine there total beliefs.

You can do a search on the web for Jerome so you can read his entire works…

• Michael

PS: Quick question, what happens to people who have never heard the Gospel… Will they be saved?

We’re not talking theology on the point of literacy. This is a matter of historical record.

The Catholic argument is being supported by the belief the masses were iliterate. Your argument falls apart if people could indeed read.

Or are you suggesting Jerome was totally unaware 99% of the population couldn’t read?

Show me one document from the first few centuries that specifically talks about having to read the Scriptures to the masses because they are illiterate and can’t read it for themselves.

The point I am making is you can’t prove your claims using misinformation and false claims. Try another approach, such as the masses didn’t have access to Scriptures and that is why they couldn’t read them, but had to depend on Church Fathers to orally tell them what it said.

Of course that argument falls short as well…

 

[plain_me]

If Scripture is the ultimate authority why then did:

1. Protestants believe infant baptism is not supported by scripture, yet Augustine in his tract, Merits and Remission of Sin, and Infant speaks that it is necessary. He took a view that according to Protestants is NOT in Scripture. therefore, he is not BIBLE ONLY according to Protestants.

Some protestants believe that it is not supported by Scripture. I happen to be one of those, so I will take this as a challenge to me personally and not broadly. I fully acknowledge that Augustine believed in a form of baptismal regeneration. He even mention this in On Christian Doctrine which is wholly devoted to arguing for the necessity and authority of Scripture and how to approach it. This does not keep me from quoting Augustine in arguing for the early articulation of predestination. I can also cite him as an ECF who disagreed with the idea of the real presence (and I will in answer to your question down below).

What I argued previously was that the citation of a theologian doesn’t automatically give them a full approval in every aspect. Do you affirm the historical Roman Catholic teaching on pugatory as a place in which people will literally suffer for a measurable period of time in order to have their temporal punishments exacted against them before entering heaven? Or do you disagree with the bulk of Roman Catholic theologians of the past and agree with the former Cardinal Ratzinger and many modern RC theologians that purgatory is NOT meant to be taken as a literal place with real expanses of time?

I hope you see my point here, which is the historical protestant one. The Bible is the “decider” of what is true and false teaching. The ECFs agreed with this, but they also appealed to those things which they believed were already firmly established by the teaching of Scripture. Irenaeus, Augustine, Athanasius, and many others can be cited as making their appeal to Scripture and calling anyone else’s teaching to account by that authority. They disagreed with each other (no unanimous consent?), and they argued as those who hold to a Biblical authority today would. And yes, protestants today will appeal to historic creeds and councils to support their arguments as well. This is not out of line with Sola Scriptura in any sense, and no one would argue that it does unless they don’t know what Sola Scriptura really is.

1. As I believe I pointed on in a previous thread, Jerome wrote a tract on the continuation of the virginity of Mary. Protestants believe this is NOT in the Bible, therefore, Jerome did not use the Bible according to Protestants to come up with his view.

He may have, but once again, this does not disprove the ultimate authority of Scripture as the SOLE INFALLIBLE rule of faith and practice. This demonstrates an inconsistency in Jerome’s teaching on the subject.

By the way, did you catch my quotation from Irenaeus on the last page (19)?

1. If you agree that the ECF’s used the Bible as their primary authority, tell me, do you accept their view that Communion was the Real Presence of Jesus and not a symbol? Can you find any early Church Father that said it was a symbol? Without question, all of them wrote it was the Real Presence. If you’ve studied something and found something else written about that, please forward.

As a matter of fact, I have exactly that. This is one quotation from Augustine from Book 3 of On Christian Doctrine. This is not the only quotation from Augustine, but I think that it is sufficient:

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
   Here’s a link to the book: ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.toc.html
   I personally recommend that you read the whole book (but don’t let that keep you from doing it).

 

[plain_me]

1. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote quite early in Against Heresies that people used Scripture to pervert the Gospel (Mormons and JW’s come to mind for modern day)… And that the Church had the authority to say they are wrong.

Irenaeus certainly did write against people using Scripture to pervert the Gospel (the Gnostics), and the reason for his defense was because those Gnostics were appealing to some outside tradition to teachthat the Bible wasn’t the only source for God’s revelation (sound familiar?). I used to have the relevant citations highlighted (or so I thought), but I have to search for them now. Please excuse me. I’ll get them up here ASAP.

1. In 325 when the Creed was developed, the CHURCH not Scripture determined that Arias was wrong. In fact, Arias used Scripture to put forward his point… But, it was the Church the called the Arianians “aliens” to the Catholic Church. You can read directly about this in Alexander’s Epistles on the Arian Heresy… It even has the signatures of the people who signed it

Ok, the church as a group came together to determine what the true teaching was in this matter, and they determined it based on what the Scriptures teach. What is ironic is that you would bring this up in defense of your position because almost immediately following Nicaea the majority of the church reverted to Arianism. This is what spurred on Athanasius’ writings against the Arians and what caused his chronic banishments from Alexandria. Remember, Athanasius was a young assistant to bishop Alexander of Alexandria at the time of Nicaea. If the church had nipped the whole Arian thing in the bud at Nicaea for good, then Athanasius would have had no reason to write against it. The bishop of Rome could’ve waved his hand and silenced the masses from your POV. The reality was that after Nicaea most of the visible church at the time was made up of Arians. Go look it up.

These are just a few examples of ECF’s who held views the Protestants feel are not in the Bible. Therefore, Scripture ONLY is just that… ONLY. Therefore, its simple to deduce that the ECF’s LOVED and VALUED Scripture, but they also adhered to Traditions as well… (example in #5).

• Michael

As do protestants. The difference between what RCs and ECFs and protestants believe about traditions is how much authority they have and where exactly they come from. If a protestant (or an ECF, I would argue—just examine the evolution of Augustine’s theology over his lifetime) were to be convinced from Scripture that his tradition is in opposition to that final authority then he would gladly reject it. Of course, I am talking about the ideal situation here. Man is still sinful and unable to see past his pride on occasion and may not admit his faults right away, but that is what he would ideally do and affirm.

 

[SimonArizona]

the church as a group came together to determine what the true teaching was in this matter, and they determined it based on what the Scriptures teach.

but the Faith was being taught even before the apostles wrote their letters and Gospels. The Church uses Scripture to prove it’s point, not as its Foundation of Truth. For Scripture stands on the authority of the Church not vice versa.

The scripture is not the pillar and foundation of the truth and the bible says so.

 

[plain_me]

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

A couple of thoughts on the entire passage (not just the two verses you pulled out):

• Remember, Sola Scriptura is ONLY. Where above does it say ONLY.
• If you notice, two verses up (you didn’t quote that) it clearly says learning from those you learned it. This is not Written… Its oral.
• I’m sure you are aware that most of the New Testament was NOT written when Paul wrote that verse. He was referring to the Old Testament.
• If anything, the passage in its entirety says we need BOTH! Not just written. (that’s what I believe!)
• There are also other verses that talk about holding fast to what we’ve taught you.
• The Bible started to written 20 years after our Lord’s Passion. Gospel of John was in the 90’s. What did they do?
• Does the Bible contain a Table of Contents in written form(in the Bible)? Who determined which Scripture’s were “inspired”?
• In fact, the Bible was not officially canonized until the late 4th century.
• We have canons from earlier that included the Shepherd of Hermes (sp?), why wasn’t that included?
• Does the Bible claim to be the SOLE foundation of everything Christian?
• What is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
• When the Holy Spirit reveals ALL Truth, why then do we have people who believe that you must speak in tongues to be saved… others believe in pre-destination… others believe that once you are saved you are always saved… still others believe you can lose your salvation… etc. Scripture says the Holy Spirit will reveal ALL truth. Which one of the above has the Truth? Who decides?

I was a Protestant for 20 years (LOVED it!!!), so I know all of the arguments and that’s the primary reason why I became Catholic. It does not pass the Faith and Reason test.

I would like to hear what you think about Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

PS: Forgive the bad grammar and rambling… These are just random thoughts in my head as to why Sola Scriptura is a really bad doctrine.

I would love to talk to you about this too, Michael. The problem I’m seeing, however, is that you aren’t paying attention to what I am or have already said. You obviously didn’t take the time to read the opening statement I referred you to, and you don’t seem to have even read page 19 of this thread to see that the arguments you’re making against me are not speaking to the point. I talked a bit about 2 Tim. 3 and what Scripture was at the time Paul wrote it. I never claimed that there was no teaching authority in the church or in the home (you are referring to Timothy’s mother and grandmother?–2 Tim. 1:5). If you read my previous posts (only on page 19, I believe. I started late) this probably will be a more profitable conversation.

 

[plain_me]

but the Faith was being taught even before the apostles wrote their letters and Gospels. The Church uses Scripture to prove it’s point, not as its Foundation of Truth. For Scripture stands on the authority of the Church not vice versa.

The scripture is not the pillar and foundation of the truth and the bible says so.

I agree that the Faith was being taught before the NT Scriptures were completed, but the point of the apostles’ efforts in committing everything to writing was in order to preserve the teaching for future generations.

I would say that using Scripture to prove your point is a dangerous practice. Many false teachers do this and have done this from the very inception of the church. The goal is to derive your teaching from the Scriptures because the Scriptures are the only unchanging word from God that we have.

I didn’t say that the Scripture was the pillar and foundation of the truth, I merely quoted Irenaeus as saying so:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5726923&postcount=271

That aside, where does the Bible say that the Scriptures AREN’T the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is an important citation your trying to make. If Scripture says one thing is true, does it preclude the possibility of other things being true in contrast to that one thing?

 

[rinnie]

Well, I’m just a little nobody Protestant so my (name removed by moderator)ut here will mean nothing, but…

The reason Protestants believe two different words derived from the same root word are used is because secular writings, from around or a little before the same time, use these two words clearly giving them different meanings.

Hi Ginger, but now after you read post number 4, What is your answer to the question now? Now that we have given you the proof on what Rock really means?

 

[Ginger2]

If Scripture is the ultimate authority why then…

1. In 325 when the Creed was developed, the CHURCH not Scripture determined that Arias was wrong. In fact, Arias used Scripture to put forward his point… But, it was the Church the called the Arianians “aliens” to the Catholic Church. You can read directly about this in Alexander’s Epistles on the Arian Heresy… It even has the signatures of the people who signed it.

This is so wrong.

The Apostle’s Creed is a summary of Scriptures: The “church” did not on their own, and apart from the Scriptures, determine Arias was wrong.
On the contrary, the church used the Scriptures to prove he was wrong!

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary, Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name [was] Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release [him].
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. …24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
and was buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

ETC.

Note:
He descended into hell is not in the original creed but can be supported by Scriptures.. Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

…neither is the word “catholic” which meant universal at the time it was added, nor the words “communion of the saints”

However, all this is supported by the Scriptures.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

…I talked a bit about 2 Tim. 3 and what Scripture was at the time Paul wrote it. …

First century Christians including the Apostles, knew Paul was writing inspired Scriptures. Paul say he is and Peter confirms it. It says so in the Bible.

However, if the Old Testament was enough to prove Jesus was the Christ, why wouldn’t we trust the New Testament stories about him that were confirmed by the thousands of eye-witnesses?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The short answer is two things:

1. I have committed to obey God, even when I don’t get the answer I want - even when obeying means I have to give up something I don’t want to give up - even when it means I have to eat humble pie. It is not very easy.
2. [SIGN]in Scripture to protect uI follow the guidelines laid out s from deception.[/SIGN]
   The long answer I will not share, as no doubt people will sin by crediting the gifts of God to demons, much the same way atheists credit them to dumb luck or coincidence.

Ginger

Ging, Could you show me the scripture that comvinced you to leave the Early Fathers of the Church then. Where is the scripture that told you to obey God by leaving the Catholic Church?

 

[plain_me]

First century Christians including the Apostles, knew Paul was writing inspired Scriptures. Paul say he is and Peter confirms it. It says so in the Bible.

However, if the Old Testament was enough to prove Jesus was the Christ, why wouldn’t we trust the New Testament stories about him that were confirmed by the thousands of eye-witnesses?

My thoughts exactly! I actually already said that, but I appreciate the reiteration.

 

[Ginger2]

Hi Ginger, but now after you read post number 4, What is your answer to the question now? Now that we have given you the proof on what Rock really means?

My answer remains the same. What proof?

 

[rinnie]

My answer remains the same. What proof?

Easy Ginger that Jesus was talking in Aramaic. Aramic only had one word of rock which is Kephas which translates to huge rock. That proof! How do you make that go away?

 

[rinnie]

Someone said Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle. That is not true. Paul is mentioned more than Peter, unless you count as two mentions when Peter is referred to once as Simon Peter or Simon called Peter.

Each of those instances is one individual mention.

However, I did count instances of “Simon, Simon” as two.

But, I’m not sure what difference it makes. Protestants could point out that Paul wrote far more Scripture than Peter.

Why would this even matter. Even if Protestants could point out that Paul wrote more scripture than Peter how would that take away from any scripture Peter wrote

What Pritestants should point out is that Peter and paul agreed on the teaching’s of scripture. Is that not what is important!

 

[Ginger2]

Easy Ginger that Jesus was talking in Aramaic. Aramic only had one word of rock which is Kephas which translates to huge rock. That proof! How do you make that go away?

Ha, ha.
You haven’t proved it. It’s speculation. As a matter-of-fact, I have shown you evidence the native tongue spoken by Jesus and his Apostles was Hebrew, not Aramaic:

…The idea that Hebrew was a lost language by the time of Jesus and that speaking Greek was common place, is just a theory.

…The RC claims the word “Hebrew” really means “Aramaic”.

But I doubt that:

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, **Eloi, Eloi, **lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The NT records this event in both Aramaic and Hebrew. The question is which is accurate to the words Jesus actually spoke.

As usual, the best why to discern is to read it in context. In this case we can learn from what the eyewitnesses say:

Those who heard Jesus speak responded, Mark 15:35 “Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, ‘Look, He is calling for Elijah!’”
In Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or an abbreviation for “Elijah”. In Aramaic Eloi distinctly means “My God.” Since the listeners thought Jesus was calling for Elijah, it can only mean Jesus was speaking in Hebrew.

Ginger

 

[plain_me]

Easy Ginger that Jesus was talking in Aramaic. Aramic only had one word of rock which is Kephas which translates to huge rock. That proof! How do you make that go away?

Though there was no distinction in the Aramaic, would you agree that there is a distinction between the words used for rock in Greek? If so, wouldn’t it be accurate for a Greek writer at the time to translate it in the sense in which it was more properly meant to be conveyed? That seems reasonable enough, right? So, why did John translate Cephas as *Petros *(a smaller rock) in John 1:42 if the correct translation would have been *Petra *(a foundational rock meant to build something upon)? It’s quite obvious that Jesus was speaking of a foundation upon which to build His church, so there is no question that he would have been referring to a Petra.

I don’t know about you, rinnie, but I feel more comfortable with the majority interpretation of the early church writers on Matt. 16:18.

 

[Jason_1977]

“Trinity” is a word used to describe the nature of the One God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

The Bible is a collection of inspired writings, it is not God. Church teachings are an expounding of those Holy Scriptures, they are not God. The sacraments are rituals design to edify (benefit) the believer, they are not God.

Scripture, Teachings & the sacraments are tools used by God, they are not God.

Protestanism is centered around Christ Jesus who is God.

Ginger

My goodness someone is really in need of a hug. When I say trinity, I mean, GOD the father, GOD the son & GOD the holy spirit. Maybe I should’ve just said GOD. (we are adults here right? It’s like talking to a teenager in here!) Trinity means 3. Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.
2. a representation of this in art.
3. Trinity Sunday.
4. (lowercase) a group of three; triad.
5. (lowercase) the state of being threefold or triple.

There’s your definition of trinity. It’s not the NATURE, it’s the UNION. Don’t lecture me on the obvious, seriously. Obviously you’re not catholic & your understanding of catholicism is pretty dim because church teachings are BASED ON SCRIPTURE. If it isn’t scripture, it’s tradition. What you don’t know about catholicism is a lot I think. I know precisely what the bible is, (why on earth would you presume I wouldn’t understand this? Do you just wake up wanting to spew nonsense? You’re stating pretty much the obvious to someone who already believes. In short, you’re wasting your time by talking but not saying anything. Also Scripture, sacraments and teachings are used by man, not God. Why would God go to confession or get baptized? My advice is to take a college course of some sort, or maybe talk to a priest, but you’re going to learn nothing here when your mind is already convinced it knows already what it needs to know. I"m going to pray for you.

Respectfully,

Jason

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.​

 

[teak421]

This is so wrong.

The Apostle’s Creed is a summary of Scriptures: The “church” did not on their own, and apart from the Scriptures, determine Arias was wrong.
On the contrary, the church used the Scriptures to prove he was wrong!

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary, Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name [was] Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release [him].
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. …24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
and was buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

ETC.

Note:
He descended into hell is not in the original creed but can be supported by Scriptures.. Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

…neither is the word “catholic” which meant universal at the time it was added, nor the words “communion of the saints”

However, all this is supported by the Scriptures.

Ginger

Uh!? Ginger, the Bible was not officially canonized until about 60 years later. As I’ve stated, we have copies (one just was posted on the internet) that had Shepard of Hermes and other books in it. Can you tell me for sure what the Canon of scripture was when the Creed was created.

When you say stuff like “You’re so wrong…” is that an argument? or an an homien (sp?) attack?

• Michael

 

[SimonArizona]

plain_me;5729087I:

agree that the Faith was being taught before the NT Scriptures were completed, but the point of the apostles’ efforts in committing everything to writing was in order to preserve the teaching for future generations.

No sir, not everything was committed to writing. “There are many things Jesus did that are not wirtten down.”-St. John, “Follow the traditions you have seen and heard from us either by our epistle or by word.”-St. Paul “have no fellowship with the man who does not follow our tradition.”-St. Paul. That is because the tradition of the Faith “once delivered to all the saints”-St. Jude, is not only in the Sacred Writ, but accompanies it in harmony. The Church does not follow what the Bible says, but the Bible flows from what the Church has said in the very beginning, so thence, if we follow what the bible says, we are following what the Church has said from the beginning.

The goal is to derive your teaching from the Scriptures because the Scriptures are the only unchanging word from God that we have.

The goal is to follow the Faith that Jesus taught us. agreed? Jesus spoke perfectly so His Truth is also perfect, i.e. no error. Scripture is a snapshot back to the beginnings of the Living Church, we can learn a lot about what the Living Church taught then as received from Christ by studying how the early Christians (those who wrote scripture and first received it) understood it to mean. This is what St. Paul is saying “Follow our tradition of the Faith.”

That aside, where does the Bible say that the Scriptures AREN’T the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is an important citation your trying to make.

agreed, this is uber important. The Bible says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, uses the image Pillar for the Church, just as the Israelites were led by the Pillar of fire in the desert, so we are led by the Pillar of Truth, and the bible says that Pillar is the Church of the Living God. Jesus also said he who build his house upon a rock, that house shall stand against the tempests, Jesus built his house upon the Rock, it is on the foundation of the Apostles, not the bible.